Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Democratic Party’

Whistleblower had ‘professional’ tie to 2020 Democratic candidate


Written by Byron York  | October 08, 2019 03:04 PM

URL of the original posting site: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/whistleblower-had-professional-tie-to-2020-democratic-candidate

In an Aug. 26 letter, the Intelligence Community’s inspector general, Michael Atkinson, wrote that the anonymous whistleblower who set off the Trump-Ukraine impeachment fight showed “some indicia of an arguable political bias … in favor of a rival political candidate.”

A few weeks later, news reports said the whistleblower’s possible bias was that he is a registered Democrat. That was all. Incredulous commentary suggested that Republicans who were pushing the bias talking point were so blinded by their own partisanship that they saw simple registration with the Democratic Party as evidence of wrongdoing.

“Give me a break!” tweeted whistleblower lawyer Mark Zaid. “Bias? Seriously?”

Now, however, there is word of more evidence of possible bias on the whistleblower’s part. Under questioning from Republicans during last Friday’s impeachment inquiry interview with Atkinson, the inspector general revealed that the whistleblower’s possible bias was not that he was simply a registered Democrat. It was that he had a significant tie to one of the Democratic presidential candidates currently vying to challenge President Trump in next year’s election.

“The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates,” said one person with knowledge of what was said.
“The IG said the whistleblower had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates,” said another person with knowledge of what was said.
“What [Atkinson] said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential candidate,” said a third person with knowledge of what was said.

All three sources said Atkinson did not identify the Democratic candidate with whom the whistleblower had a connection. It is unclear what the working or professional relationship between the two was.

In the Aug. 26 letter, Atkinson said that even though there was evidence of possible bias on the whistleblower’s part, “such evidence did not change my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern ‘appears credible,’ particularly given the other information the ICIG obtained during its preliminary review.”

Democrats are certain to take that position when Republicans allege that the whistleblower acted out of bias. Indeed, the transcript of Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a public document, for all to see. One can read it regardless of the whistleblower’s purported bias.

Nevertheless, Republicans will want to know more about the origins of the whistleblower complaint, especially given the unorthodox use of whistleblower law involved. There is more to learn — like who the Democratic candidate is — before Republicans will say they know enough about what happened.

DHS Facility Attacked With Molotov Cocktail In Florida


Reported by By Ryan Saavedra | @realsaavedra | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.dailywire.com/news/51270/dhs-facility-attacked-molotov-cocktail-florida-ryan-saavedra

Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images

A woman was arrested on Friday for allegedly attacking a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) facility in Florida with a Molotov cocktail, which authorities say was intended to harm people.

“The woman walked into the office Friday afternoon and hurled a bottle filled with gasoline and a lit fuse,” Local 10 News reported. “But the fuse disconnected and didn’t ignite … Security officers handcuffed her, and she was taken into custody. The report did not list her name.”

The attack happened at a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) office about 30 miles north of Miami.

“Today’s attempted attack on one of our USCIS facilities using a Molotov cocktail is another example of the use of violence in place of debate by those who oppose the proper application of our immigration laws,” USCIS Acting Director Ken Cuccinelli wrote in a statement. “This is the 2d attack on a DHS facility in 2 months using a Molotov cocktail. Violence has no place in our society. Thankfully, no one was hurt today. We’re grateful to our security guards & the law enforcement officers of FPS who apprehended and arrested the assailant.”

Acts of aggression against immigration authorities have increased in recent months as Democrats and the media have increasingly demonized them as part of their attacks on the Trump administration.

“About two weeks ago in San Antonio, at least one vehicle pulled up to a building that houses offices for ICE and a gunman fired shots through a window, FBI officials said,” Fox News reported. “Another building used by ICE was also fired on.”

In July, a self-described member of the far-left extremist group Antifa attacked an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building in Tacoma, Washington, as he fired a rifle at the facility, lit vehicles on fire, and attempted to detonate a propane tank that he reportedly hoped would burn the facility down.

The suspect echoed rhetoric from socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) in his manifesto, falsely claiming that immigrant detention facilities were “concentration camps.”

Day 1 of New Campaign: Biden Chucks Obama Under the Nearest Bus


Commentary By Malachi Bailey | Published April 26, 2019 at 8:56am | Modified April 26, 2019 at 8:57am

Former Vice President Joe Biden finally announced his decision to run for president, and he threw former President Barack Obama under the bus on the first day.

Biden joined the crowded field of 2020 Democrats on Thursday and immediately received praise from Obama, but he stopped short of endorsing his former running mate, according to CNBC.

“President Obama has long said that selecting Joe Biden as his running mate in 2008 was one of the best decisions he ever made,”Obama spokesperson Katie Hill said in a statement.

“He relied on the Vice President’s knowledge, insight, and judgment throughout both campaigns and the entire presidency. The two forged a special bond over the last 10 years and remain close today.”

But Obama didn’t explicitly endorse Biden, and that’s because Biden doesn’t want Obama’s endorsement.

“I asked President Obama not to endorse,” Biden said Thursday. “Whoever wins this nomination should win it on their own merits.”

Obviously, Biden’s claim that he wants to win the race on his own merits is questionable. Any candidate who wants to become the next president would accept an endorsement if it would help his or her cause. Obama is extremely popular among the far left, so it’s confusing why Biden would tell him not to endorse.

However, Obama is not particularly liked outside of far-left circles, which could be the key to understanding why Biden denied a potential endorsement. It seems as if Biden is trying to distance himself from the former president in order to make a broader appeal to the American people.

The options right now for moderate Democrats are pretty slim. Other than Biden, the front-runners are far left, including Sens. Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren. Biden will definitely need a way to differentiate himself from his progressive competition, and distancing himself from Obama is a good start to wooing more moderate Democrats. Besides, radical Democrats don’t like Biden anyway. He’s too white, too old and doesn’t have the right gender.

Regardless of Biden’s strategy, it was probably deeply insulting for Obama to have Biden ask him not to endorse his candidacy. Obama’s legacy is stained to the point where his endorsement isn’t even wanted.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Malachi Bailey is a writer from Ohio with a background in history, education and philosophy. He has led multiple conservative groups and is dedicated to the principles of free speech, privacy and peace.

Reporter Catches Extremely Disturbing Behavior from Linda Sarsour’s Apparent Bodyguard


Reported By Malachi Bailey | Published March 7, 2019 at 1:02pm

Linda Sarsour, a far-left activist and known anti-Semite, turned her bodyguard on a reporter who asked about Israel’s right to exist at Sarsour’s rally for Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar. Sarsour’s rally for Omar, who is known for her anti-Semitic tweets about “hook-nosed Jews,” was held in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday. Like the freshman congresswoman, Sarsour is notoriously anti-Semitic and known to have ties to radical Islamic groups.

And of course, Sarsour is a supporter of the “one-state solution” in the Middle East, which means the far-left activist wants to get rid of the Jewish state.

Considering Sarsour’s notoriety as founder of the Women’s March movement, known anti-Semitism and outspoken support for Omar, it makes sense why a reporter would confront her about her radical stance on Israel.

“Linda, do you believe the state of Israel has a right to exist?” a reporter asked Sarsour on Wednesday.

“We’ll answer questions later after the press conference,” Sarsour said. “I’ll be happy to answer them.”

The reporter patiently waited until after the press conference, but Sarsour’s apparent bodyguards blocked him from asking questions. As the bodyguards stopped the reporter from confronting Sarsour, he asked, “Why are you guys pushing me here?” The bodyguard repeatedly asked the reporter, “Why are you here?” and brought up anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jewish money. “Do you work for Israel? How much do you get paid? Do they pay you enough?” the bodyguard angrily asked.

The bodyguard’s comments were eerily similar to the comments made about Jewish “lobbyists” from Omar last month.

This is what the face of the new Democratic Party looks like; a growing portion of Democrats now support radical Islam and have a disdain for Jewish people. And don’t be tricked into thinking it’s only a few radicals on the left. Omar isn’t only supported by Sarsour — the representative also has the backing of her freshman colleague, Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Ocasio-Cortez, who is immensely popular in far-left circles, made it clear that she isn’t bothered by Omar’s anti-Semitism. Omar and Ocasio-Cortez might not publicly support radicals like Sarsour, but they definitely have the support of radicals, and that’s evidence enough of the representatives’ extremist dog whistling.

Democrats should be concerned because their party is being taken over by a coalition of extreme socialists and radical Islam sympathizers.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Malachi Bailey is a writer from the Midwest with a background in history, education and philosophy. He has led multiple conservative groups and is dedicated to the principles of free speech, privacy and peace.

The Modern Democratic Party: 2020 Candidate Throws Support Behind ‘Third Gender’ at Federal Level


Reported By C. Douglas Golden | Published February 17, 2019 at 10:36am

Presidential races never shape up the way you think they’re going to. For instance, at this moment in time back in 2015, we were all talking about how Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio were going to be duking it out for the Republican nomination.

That being said, the official wisdom for the Democrat nomination in 2020 is that Joe Biden will be sucking up all the air in the establishment and Bernie Sanders will have solidified the socialist segment of the party, so the key is staking out a position somewhere on the not-quite-socialist identity politics left.

The problem is that’s a crowded market segment. Democrat Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar and Kirsten Gillibrand — all of whom fit in that political niche — have already declared their intentions to run. And then there’s Beto O’Rourke — an insanely rich, insanely privileged white guy the Democrats still seem to believe is an identity politics hero because he livestreams himself skateboarding an awful lot, or something — who will probably end up in the race, too.

How, then, to differentiate one’s brand in such a crowded field?

Elizabeth Warren has called for an ultra-millionaire tax which is probably unconstitutional and a bad idea even if it weren’t.

Kamala Harris seems to be on board for doing something about legalizing marijuana at the national level, telling interviewers, according to Politico, that “it gives a lot of people joy. And we need more joy.”

Cory Booker has been talking about his vegan diet as if it were an actual campaign issue, even though he swears “whatever you eat is a very personal decision and everybody should what eat what they want to eat.”

So, taxing the heck out of the rich is taken. Cory Booker and Kamala Harris have both taken plant advocacy off the table, albeit in very different ways. What’s left for Kirsten Gillibrand?

Well, how about endorsing the legal recognition of a third gender classification at the federal level?

“New York Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a 2020 candidate, endorsed federal implementation of a third gender listing for Americans who identify as non-binary. Speaking at an LGBTQ-focused meet and greet in New Hampshire on Friday, Gillibrand emphatically said ‘yes’ about recognizing ‘X’ as a third gender marker,” CBS News reported.

“Palana Belken, a transgender woman and organizer for the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, asked Gillibrand the question and applauded her quick answer.”

The ball’s in your court now, Kamala.

The “X” identification is currently available in a number of states as well as individual cities, but no move has been made to implement it on a federal level.

“Belken said her question originated from the efforts of New Hampshire State Rep. Gerri Cannon, a transgender lawmaker who recently introduced two similar identification bills at the state level to present this third option on birth certificates and driver’s licenses,” CBS News continued.

Cannon believes federal recognition is important because of confusion involving what the “X” means when traveling in other states.

“Right now, especially non-binary people, when they go to one state to another, some state trooper may take a look at a license with an ‘X’ on it and go, ‘What is this?’” Cannon said.

First, let’s state the obvious: There’s not a particularly large body of science that proves identifying as non-binary is in any way biological. While there’s an incredibly small number of individuals who are born with intersex traits, that’s definitely not what this is addressing. Instead, this is mostly about individuals who identify as a sex different from the one they were born — people who claim they’re demigender, third-gender, genderfluid, whatever the case may be. Nobody particularly has to care about this third-gender identification in almost any other aspect of life. When dealing with the government, however, these individuals are either biologically male or female. Putting an X on their driver’s license doesn’t change this very salient fact.

But that isn’t really the point, is it? For the segment of the Democrat field that Sen. Gillibrand finds herself in, the next few months will look increasingly like a leftist political version of “Survivor.”

If all of the aforementioned candidates stay in the race, you’re pretty much guaranteed to see a Biden-Sanders showdown with almost none of these individuals having a shot.

As The Hiill reported Friday, a new poll by the Morning Consult shows that those two men are not only the most popular potential Democratic contenders for 2020 (29 percent of Democrats for Biden, 22 percent for Sanders), but each is backed by the other’s supporters as a second choice. That means they have support that’s both wide and deep.

So, for one of the non-Biden-Sanders candidates to be viable, the others need to get voted off the island. If you want immunity, you need to get yourself noticed, and the best way to do that is conspicuously getting behind something the left will love. Massive taxes! Lettuce! Hippie lettuce! A third gender!

If your pet issue doesn’t catch on, well, the tribe has spoken.

All of this nonsense will either be inconsequential to or deleterious for most of us, mind you. In Gillibrand’s case, I don’t think that individuals who choose to identify as something other than a man or a woman are going to be profoundly validated by seeing an “X” on their driver’s license. In the meantime, we’ll have committed our government to supporting an unscientific-yet-trendy gender movement.

Perhaps most telling is the fact that this idea would have been considered insanely radical just five years ago.

Now we have Gillibrand — arguably the most vanilla of the candidates jockeying to be the not-Biden-not-Sanders torch-bearer — supporting this without a second thought.  In fact, if any Democratic candidates disagreed with this, you can imagine the political firestorm they’d find themselves in. Such is the state of the Democrats in 2019, a party which is more concerned with third genders than the security of the United States.

With all of this posturing, I can’t wait to see what the next few weeks bring.

Kamala Harris livestreaming herself smoking some “joy?” Cory Booker announcing his support for massive kale subsidies, calling it the Very Green New Deal? Beto O’Rourke entering the race and declaring, in a Vermin Supreme-esque move, that he’s going to give everyone a free skateboard? The imagination reels at the possibilities.

Presidential races are unpredictable, of course, and I can’t tell you who the winner will be, but  among the losers will be a) common sense and b) America.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between America and Southeast Asia and believes in free speech and the Second Amendment.

Charlie Daniels Calls Out Leftist Hypocrisy over All-White Wardrobe: Believe All Women, Except Fairfax Accuser


Reported By Malachi Bailey | February 6, 2019 at 12:12pm

Country music legend Charlie Daniels slammed Democratic women for wearing white to Tuesday night’s State of the Union address to show support for women while their party is noticeably silent about a high-profile sexual assault accusation against Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax.

And he didn’t mince words.

“Democrat women are wearing white to the State of the Union address to signify support for ALL women (Except for the one who is accusing Lt Governor Fairfax of sexual harassment),” Daniels tweeted Tuesday night.

Many female Democratic members of Congress, including far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, wore white as a way to show solidarity on “women’s issues,” according to CNN. And while white was the color of the suffragette movement that won the right to vote for women in 1920, Democrats made it clear that the white on Tuesday applied went much further than gaining women the franchise a century ago.

“I’m looking forward to wearing suffragette white to #SOTU next week with all @HouseDemWomen!” Florida Rep. Lois Frankel wrote in a Twitter post last week. “We’ll honor all those who came before us and send a message of solidarity that we’re not going back on our hard-earned rights.”

But as Daniels pointed out, the bold statement of “solidarity” from the white attire contrasted sharply with the same women’s deafening silence regarding the allegation against Fairfax.

Virginia is currently in the midst of a political crisis as Democrats try to distance themselves from Gov. Ralph Northam, who found himself embroiled in two controversies last week. In a radio interview on Jan. 30, Northam hinted at supporting post-birth abortion, a position that disgusted and infuriated members of the pro-life movement.

But Democrats are more angry about a racist photo from Northam’s medical school yearbook from 1984. With Northam’s relationship with Democrats in tatters, the party seemed poised to throw its support behind Fairfax if Northam eventually steps down. Unfortunately for Democrats, the lieutenant governor is currently facing an accusation from a woman who claims he sexually assaulted her at the Democratic National Convention in 2004.

Fairfax, however, maintains the encounter was consensual. Virginia Democrats have been cautious at best about the accusation.

“The facts here are still being determined. Every individual deserves the opportunity to be heard, and we respect anyone who comes forward to share their story,” the state’s Democratic lawmakers said in a brief statement Tuesday.

“Governor Northam must end this chapter immediately, step down, and let Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax heal Virginia’s wounds and move us forward.”

We still haven’t heard the kind of widespread condemnation Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh received when he faced allegations that were undoubtedly less credible.

Quentin Kidd, director of the Wason Center for Public Policy at Christopher Newport University, told The Washington Post that the silence from Democrats is “deafening.”

“They may be thinking, ‘We don’t want to throw our lieutenant governor under the bus while we’re also trying to throw our governor out of office,’” he said. “Republicans are probably eating all the popcorn they can find right now. It’s quite a show.”

To be clear, Fairfax deserves due process, but that’s not a principle that Democrats care about when Republicans are accused. Democrats are supposed to “believe all women,” but it’s not a good look when they selectively believe women based on politics.

Daniels had a point. For a party that supposedly supports women, Democrats are awfully silent about Fairfax’s troubling accusation.

ABOUT THE REPORTER:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Malachi Bailey is a writer from the Midwest with a background in history, education and philosophy. He has led multiple conservative groups and is dedicated to the principles of free speech, privacy and peace.

Same Day Democrat Pushed Late-Term Abortion Bill, She Also Pushed Bill To Save Caterpillars


Reported By C. Douglas Golden | February 1, 2019 at 10:04am

While Gov. Ralph Northam is the Democrat most closely associated with the controversy regarding the Virginia abortion bill which would allow a child to be killed up until more or less the moment of birth, someone had to come up with the legislation. That someone is Virginia Delegate Kathy Tran, who introduced HB 2491, “Abortion; eliminate certain requirements.”

According to the summary, the bill “eliminates the requirement that an abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy and prior to the third trimester be performed in a hospital. The bill eliminates all the procedures and processes, including the performance of an ultrasound, required to effect a woman’s informed written consent to the performance of an abortion; however, the bill does not change the requirement that a woman’s informed written consent be first obtained.

“The bill eliminates the requirement that two other physicians certify that a third trimester abortion is necessary to prevent the woman’s death or impairment of her mental or physical health, as well as the need to find that any such impairment to the woman’s health would be substantial and irremediable,” it continues.

“The bill also removes language classifying facilities that perform five or more first-trimester abortions per month as hospitals for the purpose of complying with regulations establishing minimum standards for hospitals.”

That’s some extremely anti-life stuff. However, on the same day, it’s worth pointing out she did introduce a pro-life bill. I mean, provided that you’re a caterpillar.

TRENDING: Watch Tucker Segment Showing Off Walls Around the World that Democrats Actually Support

On Jan. 9 — the same day that the radical abortion bill was introduced — Tran also introduced HB 2495, which “prohibits localities from spraying pesticides intended to suppress an infestation of the fall cankerworm during the period between March 1 and August 1.”

Well, thank God we’re looking out for the cankerworm, a caterpillar which becomes a gypsy moth.

Tran, by the way, has gotten off of social media now that the controversy over her bill has hit; according to The Daily Caller, she deleted her accounts once the abortion bill became a major issue.

The Virginia GOP, meanwhile, had this to say about it:

Do you think the Democratic Party has become the party of abortion?

Yes No

Completing this poll entitles you to Conservative Tribune news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
You’re logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out.
The great irony of this is that even though this contentious bill may have made Tran decide on radio silence, it didn’t actually receive much play in the media until Gov. Northam decided to go above and beyond what she had proposed.

“When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of the mother, with the consent of physicians, more than one physician by the way, and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus which is non-viable,” Northam said.

“So in this particular example, if the mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen, the infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if this is what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physician and the mother.”

So  Gov. Northam appears to be proposing infanticide. (Northam’s people insisted the governor wasn’t talking about termination as an option, something that the context doesn’t support.) Tran believes that killing a baby a few minutes before birth is all right but a few minutes after birth would be murderous.

And she believes caterpillars ought to be protected, too. Don’t forget that.

ABOUT THE REPORTER:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between America and Southeast Asia and believes in free speech and the Second Amendment.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: